Dismissed

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024A482/246/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a summoning order in a Section 138 NI Act case, the High Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding payment must be decided by the trial court after evidence, rejecting the quashing plea.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash the summoning order dated 26.04.2022 is dismissed.

Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3584

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 246 of 2024 Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Pathak,Shiv Shankar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant which is taken on record.

¶7

2 . Heard Sri Ashutosh Pathak, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Anant Pratap singh, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged the validity of the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the presiding officer, Additional Court No. 1, Lucknow in Complaint No. 6375/2021 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, summoning the applicant to face the trial.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had already made payment due to the opposite party no.2 and that the opposite party no. 2 has not adduced any evidence in support of the complaint.

¶10

The correctness of allegations has to be decided by the trial court after considering evidence of the parties and whether the applicant has made payment or not, has to be decided by the trial court after the parties lead evidence in support of their respective case. The evidence will obviously be lead after the applicant puts in appearance before the trial court in response to

¶11

the summoning order.

¶12

While deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this court cannot decide the disputed questions of fact by taking evidence of the opposite party in a complaint case

¶13

In view of the aforesaid facts, this application lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 12.1.2024 Preeti.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Izhar Khan and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Juvenile a of Crime No. 176/2023 Thru. His Father Z Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vinay Kumar Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Balendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Aditya Singh @ Sukh Nidhan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another